"I like big butts," said Mr. McCain, "and I cannot lie."
This latter half of this thread, and 177in particular, is emblematic of the baleful consequences of LizardBreath getting a new job.
Hillary's elitist European way of wearing her scarf is a signal that she is far from in tune with real Americans.
...but even that did not endear her to the blue-collar voters, lovers of violence though they are.
4, because real Americans live in the deep South and don't wear scarves? I thought scarves were a pretty free-form kind of garment.
Dr. Who agrees. He looks as bewildered as I am.
Actually their expressions both have that tight sort of "I'm smiling but I hate you, you bastard/bitch" look to them. You could have come up with a better picture, O.
I didn't know there were photos of Illuminati meetings.
So question my friends. In the event the Hilary! takes the nomination, and then loses to McCain -- what's your next step?
Hopefully 13, yes. But it would mean the whole planet is doomed, so it doesn't really matter.
Hate to break it to you, but most of you wouldn't qualify to move to Canada.
most of you wouldn't qualify to move to Canada.
What are the requirements? Does it have something to do with rye whiskey, 'cause canucks sure can put that stuff down.
"most of" two people would have to be both of us.
Oh no!
Anyway, since the economy will continue to get worse and worse, he would probably be a one-term president. But still, the planet would be doomed.
In the event the Hilary! takes the nomination, and then loses to McCain -- what's your next step?
Enthusiastically praise her as mankind's brightest hope of salvation, and then write her a big check. Obviously.
I think even if she loses to McCain she can win reelection as senator, Knecht.
She's got Jomentum!
Actually their expressions both have that tight sort of "I'm smiling but I hate you, you bastard/bitch" look to them, which is right before the commencement of the hatefucking!
max
['FIXED!']
Um, Knecht, why would you write a check after she loses?
Why do I fail to be as troubled by a McCain presidency as my liberal brothers and sisters? I realize I'm inviting 500 howling comments, but seriously, I know the facts about how socially conservative he is and about his love of war, but it just doesn't seem disastrous the way Bush in '04 did (and has been). Because I think he has some moral compass, and that the evils of the last six years have been mostly ones of immorality, rather than bad policy, maybe? I'm not sure.
most of you wouldn't qualify to move to Canada
Didn't a bunch of us take this test a few weeks ago, and "pass?"
15:I have Canadian ancestry, does that help?
The potato refugee took a wrong turn at Nova Scotia, and didn't cross Mackinack til 1880.
21: oops, I fail reading comprehension.
Is there a difference between her losing to McCain and Obama losing to McCain? (Yes, yes, burning shit down, &c., etc, but besides that.)
What McCain will do is exactly what any other Republican would do in office, ogged.
The difference is the difference between the two parties.
I realize I'm inviting 500 howling comments
It's late on a Friday, it might be avoided. Also, you're insane.
The difference is the difference between the two parties.
Fair point. The answer might be that I'm looking forward to someone who won't be the worst president ever.
Didn't a bunch of us take this test a few weeks ago, and "pass?"
You have a real problem with this, don't you? Question mark on the outside.
If Obama loses to McCain, we won't see a nominee to the left of Lieberman for a generation.
Question mark on the outside.
I like to mix it up, Ben.
The answer might be that I'm looking forward to someone who won't be the worst president ever.
Your naivete is darling, Ogged. Repeat after me: it can always get worse.
Because I think he has some moral compass, and that the evils of the last six years have been mostly ones of immorality, rather than bad policy, maybe?
Famous last words. Didn't you support the war, initially, as well? When are you going to learn?
Hopefully McCain will at least have the decency to make a big show of ending torture and then continue doing it secretly. Hypocrisy is vastly preferable to sociopathy.
McCain has a moral compass. It's just that it always points him in the direction of killing lots of people.
Plus don't forget that he's a fucking idiot when it comes to the economy.
Hopefully McCain will at least have the decency to make a big show of ending torture and then continue doing it secretly.
I completely disagree. The only good thing about Bush is how transparently evil and disgusting he's been. If the next president wants to be the torturer-in-chief - and I'll admit chances are looking pretty good right now - I'd rather know about it within the first couple days of their administration than have to find out about it from Sy Hersh a year or two later.
Ogged is insane. Pay him no mind. McCain is more hawkish and in most respects more conservative than Bush. His relative sicnerity (relative to Bush) will just make him worse.
On the plus side, through his wife he could probably get you cheap kegs.
But hiding evil behavior indicates that you know it's evil!
McCain policies would be different from Bush's in that there would be a lot more warmongering, and probably significantly less massive government givaways to monopolistic corporations. McCain is just as dedicated to massive government givaways to monopolistic corporations as Bush is, but doing so is not actually a matter of principle with him, so he might prioritize other things ahead of it once in a while.
Plus don't forget that he's a fucking idiot when it comes to the economy. governance.
Seriously, the man just picks positions at random, so as to please his audience.
30 is probably wrong. The electoral map looks pretty solid, and the marginal differences can come from any number of strategies or demographic shifts. Economic populism will look even better in 2012.
If Dems are going to lose, it is certainly better to lose with Clinton; the Obama base will get all frustrated and give up on politics. For Obammers this is an event, a happening, a once-in-a-lifetime test of America. A fad. Will America pass the test, or will they move to Canada?
A Clinton loss would be like a Stevenson or Humphrey or Kerry loss. Keep on truckin. An Obama loss would be like a McGovern loss. Party split, and we got Carter, then Reagan. The McGovern losers taught their kids that Amerika sucked, so become a stockbroker and save for early retirement in Belize. Alex whathisname.
Why do I fail to be as troubled by a McCain presidency as my liberal brothers and sisters?
I was and occasionally am the same way. I think it's because his intra-party enemies are the faction of the GOP I dislike most. And I've been spoonfed stories about how awesome he is for years. And, hey, he has one event in his life when he behaved like an absolute hero, and not many people can say that.
Mostly I think it's his enemies. But I realize that's the wrong way to think about it. Just remember: he was the neocon choice for 2000. If you liked Kristol shouting instructions at the President from the Weekly Standard and NYT, you'll love him inside the Oval Office.
41 -- but like Nixon, this might lead him to do what the country actually wants once in a while.
At least he doesn't have an MBA. That's one good thing. He hasn't been indocrtinated to actually believe free-market extremism.
He hasn't been indocrtinated to actually believe free-market extremism.
He's a western Republican. Are you kidding?
Plus don't forget that he's a fucking idiot when it comes to the economy. governance.
Seriously, the man just picks positions at random, so as to please his audience. because he isn't very bright and doesn't really care about anything more nuanced than Duty, Honor, Country (as explicated by Ronald Reagan on a particularly tuned-out day).
doesn't really care about anything more nuanced than Duty, Honor, Country
It's hard for me to express my delight at this.
Who cares about who the next POTUS is going to be, the Knicks officially fired Isiah. It's a wonderful fucking day!
So, if Mcain wins, and there's a revolution and all, could I exploit my contacts with McManus to learn what symbol I should paint on my house to keeping the anarchists from burning it? I promise I won't tell anyone! (OK, maybe I'll tell Landers.)
Or maybe the revolutionary leadership could agree to a blanket exemption for all the 9-digit ZIP codes that went against McCain by 40 points or more? Because I think I'd be safe then. You can totally reindoctrinate my children and everything, just no bootprints in the flowerbed, please!
22
"... Because I think he has some moral compass, and that the evils of the last six years have been mostly ones of immorality, rather than bad policy, ..."
This is bizarre. Bush's moral lapses, while deplorable, have had trivial effects compared to his policy and personel blunders.
Forget a revolution -- if McCain wins, we need to overthrow the fucking media.
51: Are you kind of the new troll? I haven't been hanging around as much lately. In any case, I feel like authorizing torture counts as a moral issue.
Bush's moral lapses, while deplorable, have had trivial effects compared to his policy and personel blunders.
Depends. I think of staying in Iraq as a moral failing (for Bush). Ditto the illegal surveillance and torture. Could be an idiosyncratic and too hopeful reading of things.
I think I'm with Shearer in #51. At least to this extent: I think moral judgments are hard, measuring or making sense of other people's moral judgments in some explicit way harder still, and I don't have the slightest faith that a President Gore wouldn't have winked at torture.
but it just doesn't seem disastrous the way Bush in '04 did
[howl on]
No, it probably seems* more like Bush in '00. And of course that time it didn't turn out so bad.
*"Seems" to anyone so blinded by their lack of belief in the huge effect of media narratives to not understand how much they are influenced by media narratives.
[howl off]
Well, baa got what he came here for. Someone who is anti-McCain said something that looks unpatriotic. Now his faith in McCain is restored.
I don't have the slightest faith that a President Gore wouldn't have winked at torture
Neither do I, given that Vice-President Gore did.
I don't have the slightest faith that a President Gore wouldn't have winked at torture.
Of course he would have. Like I said a few days ago, the US has been torturing or training torturers for decades, but Kotsko is right that being hypocritical about it is worth something.
58: See, but they kept it secret -- they realized it was wrong! It's hypocrisy vs. sociopathy. That's the choice we're faced with here, and it's an urgent one.
Like I said a few days ago, the US has been torturing or training torturers for decades, but Kotsko is right that being hypocritical about it is worth something.
Hasn't Kotsko implied just the opposite in these very comments?
Someone who is anti-McCain said something that looks unpatriotic. Now his faith in McCain is restored.
Give me a break. He likes, I suspect, the idea of Dems running against Duty, Honor Country. Or he thinks it's a good and funny characterization.
60: Bullshit. Torture is torture; whether or not you pretend to angst privately over it while you're torturing someone doesn't make the torture victim any less tortured.
Like I said a few days ago, the US has been torturing or training torturers for decades, but Kotsko is right that being hypocritical about it is worth something.
"Worth something" in the policy sense...less likely to grow, etc....or "worth something" in a moral sense? Submit to Shearer, Shi'a.
63: I can't possibly imagine what baa likes or doesn't like. The mentality of someone who eagerly supports the Republican Party after the last seven years is as alien to me as the mind of a bat.
(Wow, most ineffective pseudonymous commenting ever!)
If the option of not torturing at all were on the table -- and in the case of Obama (not Clinton), I hold out some genuine hope that it is -- then I would of course choose that. But if it's a choice between brazen evil and hypocrisy, you've got to go with hypocrisy every time. That's why I have repeatedly characterized it as a choice between hypocrisy and sociopathy. At least hypocrisy gives you something to work with!
54
"Depends. I think of staying in Iraq as a moral failing (for Bush). ..."
What does this mean? So when McCain stays in Iraq and starts a war wtih Iran for good measure it won't be a moral failing for McCain like it would be for Bush because McCain is a good guy and Bush is a bad guy?
It's hypocrisy vs. sociopathy. That's the choice we're faced with here, and it's an urgent one.
No, it's principle vs. convenience. The CIA comes to you and says "Our protocol for serving the country requires that we be allowed to torture the following people and types of people". I would say that Bush responds to this by saying "Thank god men like you are still alive. I really want the country to be taking the gloves off here and killing the bad guys" - thus being a principled believer in torture. Whereas Clinton responds by saying "I guess it it's your only option, and you've actually thought about the consequences, then you can do it, since I don't want you to go to the media and say I'm preventing you from keeping this country safe" - thus endorsing torture for reasons of political convenience.
McCain would probably actually be on the good side here.
Worth something in the sense that America can still protest torture in other places (of course, this is moot, since America won't be able to do any such thing for decades).
Worth something in the sense that America can still protest torture in other places
Again, sounds like policy, not morality.
Zippy, "hypocrisy" is too strong a word. The president has to pick his battles. If he thinks the American people will turn against him and his policies if he can be shown to be steadfastly opposed to torture, then he has to pick whether that's the hill he wants to die on.
But if it's a choice between brazen evil and hypocrisy, you've got to go with hypocrisy every time.
Um, why? Hypocrisy doesn't give you "something to work with"; it just means that it's that much harder to expose your enemies for what they are. See, for example, the disparity between McCain's current reputation as an anti-torture maverick and his actual pro-torture record.
Again, secret torture is worse than torture being out in the quasi-open as it is now, because it's harder to shed light on it. What I most dread is a secret torture regime being run by a Democratic president, because then institutionalized torture is never fucking going away. Every single Dem partisan will defend it to the hilt, using every talking point the GOP used during the Bush years, and to the extent the GOP attacks a Dem torture regime, they'll attack it for not torturing enough. Waterboarding will become the new death penalty, just as the war on terror is becoming the new war on drugs - a giant moral catastrophe neither party can step out of because both are politically committed to its atrocities.
Strasmangelo implies that he steadfastly supports Republicans against Democrats, because he respects evil people more than liars. Is this true?
Again, secret torture is worse than torture being out in the quasi-open as it is now, because it's harder to shed light on it.
Bullshit. It's also smaller, because big is harder to keep secret, and open is hard to criminalize, however hypocritically.
Somebody over at Balkinization has been exploring cycles in Presidents, if you want to ignore my theory in 42. But I am startng to feel good about it,
1) Personally I was thrilled to vote for McGovern in 72. I honestly don't remember if I voted in 76, or what state or institution or gutter I was in that year. But, c'mon after Nixon-McGovern who got excited about Ford vs Carter?
2) I really don't know how to phrase it, but our current President is twice the figure of McCain Was Stalin "great?" Bush wanted to "make a difference", to change the world, and he did. There is very little incompetence in this administration. They are the only consistently and competently *evil* Presidential administration in American history. That comes from the very top. Not Cheney.
McCain is much closer to Ford or Bush Elder than Reagan or Bush Junior.
Ford was very bad, in a panicked fumbling kind of way. I think when you watch President McCain, although I don't think he will take the oath, y'all will understand just how good Shrub was at getting what he wanted.
it just means that it's that much harder to expose your enemies for what they are
Ah, but at least when you do expose them they don't say "yeah, so?"
What does this mean?
What I mean is that there was nothing about wanting to go to Iraq or wanting to "fight" "terrorism" that necessitates wanting to stay in Iraq, or wanting to torture, or wanting a secret surveillance regime. That the Bush administration has opted for all those things seems to me not really a policy that they're pursuing, but the manifestation of bad character (are we allowed to talk this way about politics? Let me guess. No.) Anyway, I don't think McCain is craven in the ways Bush is craven, and that would spare us quite a bit of horror. Now, McCain actually believes in staying in Iraq (it's not like I'm going to vote for the guy), but that's because he believes in war, not because he's too chickenshit to admit he was wrong. In this particular case, whether he's less craven than Bush doesn't make a difference.
So according to my cycles, we have had a very powerful President. Obama is McGovern, HRC is Humphrey.
If Obama loses the general, the Obammers stay home in 2012, and we get a non-entity against McCain. (Clinton will be over if sho leses the nomination, and she knows it) Biden? Who knows?
But the non-enity will win in 2012, like Carter did. And without grassroots or elite support, in 2016 we get a real honest-to-god Fascist.
Or Obama might win in 2008. What would it looked like if McGovern had beaten Nixon in 1972? Farout, man.
That the Bush administration has opted for all those things seems to me not really a policy that they're pursuing, but the manifestation of bad character
Whose character? Bush's? Cheney's? How deep is the rot? The President is a front man to a large extent, especially someone like Bush.
are we allowed to talk this way about politics? Let me guess. No.
If people object to talking about character, it's not out of PC pique, but because all the relevant terms seem peculiarly amorphous and more than a little made up. At least that's my objection.
I don't think McCain is craven in the ways Bush is craven
Really, and you also think Clinton's shrill and Obama's arrogant. Dude. You watch way too much CNN.
In what way is McCain not like Gerald Ford?
Ford became minority leader for a reason. He was a "decent and likable guy", tho a hardcore Republican conservative asshole on policy.
I really don't see guts or strength or brains in McCain, just incompetent bluster.
Obama is getting attacked in the typical way that liberals get attacked. His supporters worry, Clinton supporters get excited. And he makes a big show of confidently brushing off the attacks. Ogged watches this and thinks, "Gee, that really tells you something about his character, he's really arrogant, that's probably his tragic flaw!"
Ogged, the problem with talking about character is that people tend to use that word the way you do: to let people off the hook for their bad character, rather than to call them to account for it.
"Believing in war," as you put it, is a character flaw. The desire to bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran is a character flaw.
Also, you've gotten an entirely insufficient amount of shit so far for 22.
Also, you've gotten an entirely insufficient amount of shit so far for 22.
I'm just wondering out loud. I'm not committed to thinking that McCain is a-ok.
77
"... Now, McCain actually believes in staying in Iraq (it's not like I'm going to vote for the guy), but that's because he believes in war, not because he's too chickenshit to admit he was wrong. ..."
What do motivations matter if the policy results are exactly the same?
not because he's too chickenshit to admit he was wrong.
How do you know?
Liberals will be misunderestimating Bush Junior for centuries.
Cheney was never any big deal before 2000. Famously an acerbic radical asshole who never got his way. A manager, like Paul O'Neill, ignored at decision time and laughed at in serious discussion. Same with Rumsfeld.
Why was Colin Powell able to hold Cheney back in Gulf I but not in 2002-03? Not because Cheney gained tons of power. VP's have no power. They don't.
88: Bush, on the other hand, has a lifetime of brilliant strategizing to his credit. Unlike Cheney and Rumsfeld, he always accomplished everything he set out to do.
Also, Obama isn't McGovern, he's Mussolini. Keep the historical analogies consistent.
What do motivations matter if the policy results are exactly the same?
If the policy results are exactly the same, the motivations don't matter. But the results won't always be the same.
Because Powell had power over Bush Sr., whereas Cheney had power over Bush Jr.?
Further to 87: consider that McCain's "honest belief" in war might be motivated by cowardice, insofar as discarding that belief would mean admitting error.
I hate to say it in this environment, but U.S. policy on torture, overt or covert, is not my chief concern with respect to a McCain presidency. It's his economic policy. See hilzoy's recent post on this.
Does he have the political capital to make these things happen? I don't know. But it sure as hell looks like incompetence. (His health care proposals, for which I don't find a link at the moment, are equally ditzy.)
Let's just all take a deep breath and admit that, while we have little idea what specifically is going to happen, we all know that we're totally at the mercy of an imbecile, diseased political process.
Once we accept that, we'll immediately find comity and peace, and beyond that, joy. Because we will have become One with the Truth.
Hillary is getting a bum rap. It makes me sad to see the left turning on her so viciously.
I wish her a long and fruitful career in the Senate.
That is all.
PGD, considering that I never liked Bill or Hillary at all, I've been pretty temperate so far. But her willingness to make rightwing alliances has always been objectionable, and it's showing at its worst right now. And she herself has chosen to go negative on Obama, and a negative response is the only one she can reasonably expect.
Cheney was never any big deal before 2000.
Neither was Dubya.
Neither was Dubya.
You only show naivete, Emerson. He was the Hidden Hand that held you down in the worst moments of your life.
89:Watching The Tudors on Showtime this season. Henry VIII was no Elizabeth.
Once you get into power, once you hold the reins, all it takes is stubbornness. That is what people outside the inner circle don't understand about Bush. Bush has a long and ugly biography, but I don't ever remember anything about Bush being manipulable or listening to advice. Nothing. Yet suddenly he became a puppet or front man?
Cheney was the flunky. Cheney and Rumsfeld were flunkies their whole lives. Bush never did anything, worked for anybody, but himself.
PGD, I agree that she's getting a bum rap: my sense is that she's a product and promoter of what we now think of as politics as usual (and a tougher player than most). There's the notion that Obama is not.
The entire thing is rather surreal, given that Obama will inherit the U.S. political structure as it stands.
99: Right, no one else made any money from Harken Energy or the Texas Rangers, it was 100% Bush.
100: Hillary Clinton is saying that Obama is elitist and divisive.
Barack Obama is a politician.
Equivalent sins? I don't think so.
The comparison to Henry VIII is so instructive I have to wonder if it's intentional.
What, Sir Thomas Moore, Saint & Scholar, author of books still read half a millenia later, was the smart guy?
Maybe so, but he lost everything & everywhere. His country, his church, his head.
It is Bush that made the difference.
Today I was scanning through some old New York Times stories about the 1992 Democratic primary, to get a little perspective. Things I learned: Jerry Brown really is the say-anything-to-win candidate that some people think Hillary is. The Clinton campaign was often cited as having wisely avoided Al Gore's 1988 mistake of not having a plan to win any of the states after Super Tuesday. George W. Bush pops up more often than one might expect.
I'm not committed to thinking that McCain is a-ok.
Even if you are, I'm not sure it matters. How much of the last seven years is due to the simple personality manifestations and preferences of Bush the Younger, and how much due to the machinations of his party? My sense is that it's strongly the latter, and perhaps they can reform, but they need to go play in the sandbox before they get entrusted with the Presidency again.
My sense is that it's strongly the latter
Me, too. Accountability matters, if only so they rid themselves of their worst elements. Or at least their second or even third worst elements.
Also, Obama isn't McGovern, he's Mussolini. Keep the historical analogies consistent.
Well, he aint FDR or LBJ. Bobby? I never liked Bobby. And Bobby was no intellectual.
Have we ever had a charismatic intellectual become President?
A lot I guess. Jefferson, Lincoln, TR, Wilson(?), Carter(?), Clinton. They got some things done, failed miserably in others, had years of hell.
Mussolini, Lenin were charismatic intellectuals. Ok maybe Lenin wasn't charismatic
90
"If the policy results are exactly the same, the motivations don't matter. But the results won't always be the same."
If Bush is just marking time until his term is over out of a cowardly refusal to admit an error he knows he made while McCain would repeatedly escalate because of an sincere belief that victory is essential regardless of the costs or risks the results would be far worse.
102: Equivalent sins? I don't think so.
Did I say there were equivalent sins at hand?
Relax, my friends. There is positively no way that McCain is going to win this election.
The Dem's have a big gun, you see, that will blow McCain's aspirations to smithereens. They're just waiting for the right time to unload it. That's why this primary race is so hot, and why they're wasting so little energy attacking McCain - just enough to keep him from thinking something's up.
I'll even tell you what it is. It's well publicized that McCain can't hold his arms above his head. It's less well-known just how short he is. Now you see where this is going. That's right, McCain is too short to reach the nuclear button! Dems, with their blind love of the disabled, might be persuaded to elect a candidate for whom there is effectively no nuclear option. But no way will Republicans do that! They will without question prefer a candidate who might not push the button till the last minute to one who can't push it at all.
105
"Even if you are, I'm not sure it matters. How much of the last seven years is due to the simple personality manifestations and preferences of Bush the Younger, and how much due to the machinations of his party? My sense is that it's strongly the latter, ..."
I don't agree at all. Reagan pulled out of Lebanon when he realized it was a mistake, Bush 41 was smart enough to stay out of Iraq. The Republican party let Bush drive them over a cliff.
Wasn't Jefferson a charismatic intellectual? He always comes off that way to me.
Jefferson's conclusions about the Bible are noteworthy. He considered much of the new testament of the Bible to be lies. He described these as "so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture". He described the "roguery of others of His disciples", and called them a "band of dupes and impostors" describing Paul as the "first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus", and wrote of "palpable interpolations and falsifications".
Worse than the Reverend Wright?
The Republican party let Bush drive them over a cliff.
Most of them were pushing the bus and cheering.
They were certainly On The Bus, and in a severely altered state of perception. The bus was named F-A-S-T-U-R.
she's a product and promoter of what we now think of as politics as usual (and a tougher player than most). There's the notion that Obama is not.
The entire thing is rather surreal, given that Obama will inherit the U.S. political structure as it stands.
It's not that surreal (ie, there are actual stylistic differences that correspond roughly to people's perceptions), although it is true that the noise about the Democratic primary has been mostly about magnifying negligible substantive differences.
The Republicans went off the cliff when Gingrich took over in 1994. Bush wasn't a big change.
I say that it's surreal because I wonder how able Obama will find himself, post-election, to ignore debts to various parties generated in the course of the campaign. I do not mean by this that I expect him to wind up just another politician in the pocket of special interests (as they say); but I do wonder how he will handle this, since it is how things work inside the beltway.
Hillary is getting a bum rap.
Emerson said it, but it's worth repeating: she deserves absolutely everything she's getting, and more. She has a very slim chance of winning the nomination -- and can only do it by totally knee-capping Obama. And even that might not work. But will elect McCain, and indeed, even her effort to win helps McCain, possibly enough for him to win.
Why shouldn't people give her crap for this? If McCain wins, she'll be every bit as responsible -- more responsible -- than Nader for GWB.
The race is a tremendously harmful vanity project.
117: of course Obama will have debts to repay; this is how politics works. But presumably Obama won't be calling Democrats out-of-touch latte-sipping divisive elitists, will he? And he won't be worrying if Democrats have the balls to be in charge of national security? Because that's the big difference I see.
I think the character of GWB was a very significant factor. He's a very very small man.
113
"Most of them were pushing the bus and cheering."
Maybe but Bush was driving.
Hee hee. I found that picture last week and used it to promote a book event for a friend of mine. Buy his book! It's got a pretty cool title I say.
That picture has gone a long way towards reminding me why I felt as little loyalty to the Dems as I did in 2000. I'm not saying that "anyone who would snuggle up to McCain is as bad as a Republican" -- I'm saying that that obvious meaning to the image brings to mind just how shitty it felt to have Clinton try to shove corporate globalization down our throats.
The government isn't really like a bus. You may have one ultimate decision maker, but it's not like one guy can single-handedly construct a war policy.
116
"The Republicans went off the cliff when Gingrich took over in 1994. Bush wasn't a big change."
Not true. Clinton protected them from themselves.
What about a fuck bus? Is it like a fuck bus?
First they came for the analogies, and I did not say anything, for I was not an analogy. Then they came for the colorful metaphors...
The moderates and rational conservatives have almost all been driven out of the Republican Party, and they weren't that wonderful in the first place. They're almost all winger zombie slaves now -- Bush is not worse than average.
McCain is at all good only in comparison to most of the other Republicans, and his one big issue is more wars.
Napi speaks truth in 118, but this has been around the block again and again.
Is the question now whether we will blame Clinton if Obama loses to McCain?
123
"The government isn't really like a bus. You may have one ultimate decision maker, but it's not like one guy can single-handedly construct a war policy."
The bus driver doesn't construct the bus either.
The government isn't really like a bus.
Maybe one of those Norse ships.
You're full of shit, James. Clinton blocked them, and worked with them on free trade, but he didn't improve them any. They've been predominantly nuts since 1994.
McCain doesn't seem religious or racist, and when it comes to war at least he had some first-hard experience as a POW, so he doesn't trigger panic attacks in liberal urbanites.
McCain is at all good only in comparison to most of the other Republicans
Exactly. Chuck Hagel is the guy that McCain pretends to be.
130
"... They've been predominantly nuts since 1994. "
Being nuts isn't necessarily an electoral handicap. Implementing nutty policies which lead to disaster is. The brand wasn't damaged until Bush.
129: exactly!
128: I know you have some strange sort of cognitive blindspot, but the point is that the no large organization's behavior is purely a function of the personality and behavior of its leader. The leader's character matters, but the same is true for the character of his subordinates. They are not inanimate objects to be driven around.
Recall that this discussion started because Ogged seemed to be under the illusion that the Republicans are a pretty decent political party that just happens to be led by someone with bad character.
Well, I look forward to some more digging up of McCain's affiliations; presenting him as the least-bad republican strikes me as yesterday's perception.
God help me, I'm fascinated by the prospect of general election debates between Obama and McCain.
131
"... and when it comes to war at least he had some first-hard experience ..."
So did Hitler. The real reason liberals like McCain is that he has the right enemies.
Shut up, James. When I said in 116 that the Republicans went off the cliff in 1994, what I meant was that they stopped being sane then. That's true. Your responses have been stupid. You're talking about different things. Bush did not drive the Republicans insane. They already were.
136: I think that was the part you in 131 you decided not to quote.
Liberals never have liked McCain. The reason that some weak-minded Democrats once liked McCain was in the area of Stockholm Syndrome and submissive wetting.
137: Right, James is arguing that Clinton "protected" the Republicans by denying them power and that Bush "drove them off the cliff" by being the leader they fervently supported.
134
"I know you have some strange sort of cognitive blindspot, but the point is that the no large organization's behavior is purely a function of the personality and behavior of its leader. The leader's character matters, but the same is true for the character of his subordinates. They are not inanimate objects to be driven around."
Sure the Republicans could have stopped the war in Iraq like they shot down Miers and Bush's immigration bill but they didn't force the war on Bush. And a lot of the faithful in both parties reflexively parrot the party line and talking points.
Recall that this discussion started because Ogged seemed to be under the illusion that the Republicans are a pretty decent political party that just happens to be led by someone with bad character.
I'll just quote myself, James. Normal people can understand context and are concerned with how the points they're making fit into the context. Or I can respond in the spirit of your comments and point out that we don't really know anything about Bush's bus-driving skills.
137
"... When I said in 116 that the Republicans went off the cliff in 1994, what I meant was that they stopped being sane then. ..."
They won an election in 1994 whcih gave them power and confidence but I don't think their platform changed all that much.
We may be talking past each other. When I orignally said "off the cliff" in 111 I meant the point at which their policies led to disaster for the party. They may have stopped being sensible much earlier but hadn't done much damage to the Republican party image until Bush. They could have regained their senses and prevented disaster, now it is too late.
They could have regained their senses and prevented disaster, now it is too late.
I think the opposing claim is something like this: "regaining their senses" would mean one faction willingly ceding power to another (previously dominant) faction, and that never, ever happens. (See, e.g., the Dem primary.) That is, Bush didn't arrive at his positions by himself; there is an infrastructure that provided the motivating ideas and supported him in his decisions.
We may be talking past each other.
Happens a lot.
144
"I think the opposing claim is something like this: "regaining their senses" would mean one faction willingly ceding power to another (previously dominant) faction, and that never, ever happens. (See, e.g., the Dem primary.) That is, Bush didn't arrive at his positions by himself; there is an infrastructure that provided the motivating ideas and supported him in his decisions."
The stupid war faction wasn't dominant in the Republican party until Bush.
but it just doesn't seem disastrous the way Bush in '04 did (and has been)
Since no one remarked on this, I will: that is one low fucking bar to hurdle. Personally, I regard McCain as a smarter, more competent Bush Jr. Jr. Which, in most ways that matter, makes him even worse than the first Junior.
Also, is Clinton wearing an "Oxford knot"? I've heard scarves tied such called that. She's an elitist swine if it is.
The stupid war faction wasn't dominant in the Republican party until Bush.
The relevant faction's first instance of real power was Gingrich's ascension to Speaker, and Bush was their first President after that (and their first candidate, Dole being very much an old war horse from the old order, and considered as such at the time).
That is, Bush didn't arrive at his positions by himself; there is an infrastructure that provided the motivating ideas and supported him in his decisions.
I have to take Shearer's side on this. The Republican infrastructure's overwhelming mandate is: transfer wealth to the rich. Once you satisfy that mandate (and maybe appoint a few horrible people to the Supreme Court), then it's really up to you what you want to do.
Bush had to work very hard to make war happen. I mean, seriously - a war of aggression against a guy who poses us no meaningful threat whatsoever - against our enemy's enemy for Chrissakes !! That was not an easy thing to do, and it got done because Bush made it happen.
You can talk all you like about his subordinates, but he doesn't listen to his subordinates; he fires the fuckers when they don't share his views. How many generals has he gone through? Is there actually anybody here who thinks that intelligence fuckups, rather than fraud, determined the false intelligence that the public got on Iraq?
I am very suspicious of "great man" history - really quite opposed to it in the vast majority of cases. But Bush is a great man - wickedly great, as Minister Farrakhan might say. He changed the course of history.
I am very suspicious of "great man" history - really quite opposed to it in the vast majority of cases.
Mmm. Maybe not so opposed as you think.
I'm really puzzled by the suggestion that McCain might not be as bad as Bush. True, anything might happen, but I wonder which Bush policies might have been better with McCain. I can't think of any. The best thing I can think of to say about McCain is that Giuliani is probably worse.
151
"... True, anything might happen, but I wonder which Bush policies might have been better with McCain. ..."
I think McCain might have been more reluctant to get into Iraq in the first place. But once there I think he would have been even more pigheaded and stubborn about seeking victory than Bush has been.
153
"... True, anything might happen, but I wonder which Bush policies might have been better with McCain. ..."
McCain might not have cut taxes as much.
I'm 80% with Shearer and Politicalfootball in 149. Bush was the key, but it was also very important that there was a faction in place in the Republican party -- the PNAC bunch -- that had already converted Cheney and was prepared to pitch Bush on the Iraq war as the solution to all his problems. Bush had his blank slate aspect in foreign policy. Now, the neocons were only one faction within the Republican party -- there were many others, from Powell to Hagel -- and Bush was the key in determining that they would win. But it was a symptom of the intellectual dry rot of conservatism that neocons had found a home there.
It's useful to remember that PNAC was explicitly searching for a replacement for the Cold War as a national mission, that is deep in Republican DNA since WWII.
Oh, and the Bush tax cuts were the poor policy that was inevitable when the Republicans were elected. That was in the party's DNA. It's much to McCain's credit that he opposed the tax cuts in 2001, and indicative of what he's about now that he's completely reversed field and become a tax cut fantatic since then.
Wow, ogged has gone crazy, and Shearer is making sense. I must have slipped into that alternate universe where Spock has a beard. My first clue should have been when I heard Isiah Thomas got fired. In my universe, history has shown there's nothing Thomas can do to get fired.
Sure the Republicans could have stopped the war in Iraq like they shot down Miers and Bush's immigration bill but they didn't force the war on Bush. And a lot of the faithful in both parties reflexively parrot the party line and talking points.
Perhaps they could have, but the relevant question going forward is whether they'd stop McCain's warlike designs. "It's not our fault, we only enthusiastically followed the leader's bad plan, we didn't make it but we cheered the whole way" doesn't inspire confidence in their collective judgment.
157
"Perhaps they could have, but the relevant question going forward is whether they'd stop McCain's warlike designs. "It's not our fault, we only enthusiastically followed the leader's bad plan, we didn't make it but we cheered the whole way" doesn't inspire confidence in their collective judgment."
If McCain is elected on a prowar platform of course they won't do much to stop him. The real question is what the Democrats would do.
Unfortunately, I think it's clear that Congressional Democrats cannot force withdrawal from Iraq against the opposition of a determined President. A larger Democratic Senate majority would lead to some bills actually passed, but no veto could be overridden. McCain would claim his election was a mandate for continuing the war anyway.
If a Democratic President is elected, I honestly believe we will be out of Iraq by sometime in 2010.
A lot of what people are saying would make some sense if Bush had had to work hard to make Republicans in Congress support his war and his many other excesses. As far as I remember they fell in line automatically and fanatically, with only scattered individual exceptions. They've been primed for craziness ever since 1994, and all I can give Bush credit for was the specific direction (e.g., attacking Iraq rather than Venezuela).
A key point for me: a lot of Bush's foreign policy, maybe all of it, is political theater for consumption by his insane core constituency. And American liberals have always been one of his primary targets -- Bush's initial 80% wartime approval ratings enabled a lot of stuff completely unrelated to the actual war.
PGD: False. Democrats could have refused to fund the war, but they didn't want to bad enough. Appropriations is one area the President needs 51%
Some Congressional Democrats are pro-war, and most are small-time influence-peddlers. It was impossible for that reason, not because the majority wasn't large enough or for other structural reasons.
Appropriations is one area the President needs 51%
The Democrats don't have 51% of the Senate -- they only control a majority because Lieberman caucuses with them. It's obvious enough where he stands, especially now that he's endorsed McCain and offered to be the keynote speaker at the Rep convention.
But you're right that the Democrats have shown themselves unwilling to shut down the government in a showdown with Bush over Iraq funding. It seems pretty clear that Bush would drive the things over a cliff to protect his pet war.
Appropriations is the House. it's the most leverage Congress has, and it was intended that way.
L'hypocrisie est un hommage que le vice rend à la vertu.
and apropos of Rochefoucauld and blogs
Nous ne trouvons guère de gens de bon sens, que ceux qui sont de notre avis.
and of this thread
Le vrai moyen d'être trompé, c'est de se croire plus fin que les autres.
La Rochefoucauld is not a salad dressing.
I have a tshirt that says this.
Saw some charts on 2007 oil production today.
Qatar down, Iran down, Saudi Arabia way down. Oil in the ground gets more valuable every day, and Iraq may most of what's left.
We ain't leaving that oil.
166: That's stupid. It's not like that oil is being seized for America while we're there or something; it goes into the global oil market where China et al buy it up. That's good for oil companies, and for the politicians they own (Cheney), but once politicians owned by different industries are in charge that simply won't be a factor.
And by now the United States has spent three trillion dollars on this war: if all you're trying to do there is make oil cheaper, that's a spectacularly ineffective way to do it. The war is going to end at some point, and not out of the goodness of the American heart, but because America just can't afford it.
167: Has it occurred to you that the Republicans might be more in favor of large corporations than of the average person? "War for oil" doesn't mean cheap oil for the plebes -- it means war so that American oil corporations can gain control of Iraqi oil reserves. The Iraq War has done a great job of the latter. Don't you remember the record profits the oil companies posted recently?
This claim that Iraq "wasn't about oil" because prices are higher is trotted out now and then, and it's really naive.
Also, tkm is kind of a douche.
3: He was a maverick red-state veteran with nothing to lose. She was a rigid blue-state technocrat with everything to gain. John McCain and Hillary Clinton star in . . . Purple Hearts
He was a maverick red-state veteran with nothing to lose. She was a rigid blue-state technocrat
This red-blue confusion still drives me crazy. I've been reading US blogs for years, but still, aarrrgh ...
John McCain and Hillary Clinton star in . . . Purple Hearts
Wow. That's actually kind of impressive.
This red-blue confusion still drives me crazy. I've been reading US blogs for years, but still, aarrrgh ...
Guess which side of the road we drive on.
169 is awesome.
Someone with some video editing talent: start looting stock news footage and create a youtube short film of this, stat!
I know the facts about how socially conservative he is and about his love of war, but it just doesn't seem disastrous the way Bush in '04 did (and has been)
No one's mentioned that a McCain presidency would mean kissing Roe goodbye? I thought this was a feminist blog.
Guess which side of the road we drive on.
Yeah, but on that one, you're with the majority. Most countries drive on the right.
Just about everyone, everywhere, however, uses red-blue in entirely the opposite way.
Whoa there, Nápi. I can't handle more than one disaster at a time.
Just about everyone, everywhere, however, uses red-blue in entirely the opposite way.
For now. (Cue ominous thunder.)
168: Re-read 167. Specifically, re-read:
That's good for oil companies, and for the politicians they own (Cheney), but once politicians owned by different industries are in charge that simply won't be a factor.
That is to say, if the current war only benefits energy conglomerates, it only benefits those politicians currently owned by energy conglomerates. Democratic politicians are owned by a host of interests, but Big Oil isn't foremost among them. To the extent that Democrats drag out the war, it will be out of a combination of general hawkishness (couched in terms of "force projection" and "national security") and cowardice (a desire to avoid looking like cut-n-runners).
175 -- It's Jimi:
cf. My red is so confident that he flashes trophies of war, and ribbons of euphoria with Blue are the life-giving waters taken for granted, they quietly understand
There's plenty of folks who'd fit different colors Anger, he smiles, towering in shiny metallic purple armour; Queen Jealousy, envy waits behind him her fiery green gown sneers at the grassy ground and seem baffled at both red and blue.
175: It's true -- red is surely the color of the Left. But the tradition here was at each presidential election to switch who was Red and who was Blue. Only after the 2000 election did "Red States" and "Blue States" become a trope, and now we're stuck.
It's true -- red is surely the color of the Left.
I'm not sure the US Left is really all that left, or that such a directional map describes the differences at all.
Oud, it just took us a while to realize Jimi's vision. In the interest of completeness, for those few of you not currently familiar with the song, here are the other color couplets:
Once happy turquoise armies lay opposite ready,
But wonder why the fight is on
Orange is young, full of daring,
But very unsteady for the first go round
My yellow in this case is not so mellow
In fact I'm trying to say it's frigthened like me
re: 179
There was a time when I could play that (on the guitar), or at least make a semi-decent stab at it. I haven't played any Hendrix in a while. That's a nice reminder.
No idea why turquoise instead of indigo, though.
Speaking of Jimi (he's there for a flash), I kind of adored this video until the obnoxious switch-up to "99 Problems" and then it just pisses me off.
Has it occurred to you that the Republicans might be more in favor of large corporations than of the average person?
Stras is probably in the bottom five of Unfogged commenters to whom this rhetorical question should be addressed.
And by now the United States has spent three trillion dollars on this war: if all you're trying to do there is make oil cheaper, that's a spectacularly ineffective way to do it.
Ignoring the senseless expenditure of lives, the opportunity cost destroys me. This was probably the last chance we had to initiate a smooth transition towards a post-carbon economy, and we pissed the money away in the desert.
175: Ttam, it's the colors on the map. For years they alternated every election, but 2000 was such a big election that the colors became a common short-hand, and consequently the networks have chosen to retain the term.
178,187:I didn't say it was a good idea or reason.
And it's much more complicated than just machismo and greed. The Saudis (& Chinese, and other net export/extraction states) financed this war, a little more subtly than they financed the last one. The Saudis also have openly commanded the US to stay (cf Clemons), with a threat of open intervention if we leave. Holy War, anyone?
I keep seeing stuff like:"The war was about keeping the dollar reserve status and holding back the Iran bourse." We, the US, are losing our empire and not in fucking charge anymore. Get used to being a client state.
Alt-energy, sure, like the Sauds would give us that permission.
"The war was about keeping the dollar reserve status and holding back the Iran bourse."
Natargacam, the United States is unique among advanced nations in the fact that "Communist" and "Socialist" are quite literally dirty words. If the Democratic party was identified with red, it would very seriously be a handicap, since using "red" as the shorthand for the left party implies that they are allied with whatever theoretical Communists might exist, which would be very very scary.
I think people in the media consciously thought about that when deciding how to draw the maps.
No one's mentioned that a McCain presidency would mean kissing Roe goodbye? I thought this was a feminist blog.
That's not something for which McCain would be better or worse than Bush. That's one of the issues, like almost every imaginable issue, on which they are exactly the same, because they are both in the Republican party.
Just about everyone, everywhere, however, uses red-blue in entirely the opposite way.
Blue was the colour of the Rockingham Whigs, who were considerably to the left of the modern Democrats, but offer a better model for them than anything else I can think of.
In other news, I notice that if I go on holiday for a couple of weeks it brings Fafblog back. What would you like me to do next time?
That's not something for which McCain would be better or worse than Bush.
Of course it is, unless you think that Stevens and Ginsburg are going to last another 4-8 years on the court.
194 makes no sense.
Do you think McCain would appoint significantly different justices than Bush?
No, I think he would appoint virtually the same. The point is that building on Bush's appointments, he can now do more damage, and would therefore be worse.
And it's not just the SCOTUS. The entire federal judiciary top to bottom is crammed full of conservative activists.
However, he would not be worse than 8 more years of Bush would be. And I don't think Ogged is saying he would be better.
No one's mentioned that a McCain presidency would mean kissing Roe goodbye? I thought this was a feminist blog.
I gave up on this a long time ago. No one gives a shit about women's petty civil liberties: there's a war on!
McCain doesn't seem religious or racist
Notwithstanding his use of the word "gooks".
Also, Ttam, think of it this way: red is the color of blood. Blue is the color of the sky in which our pie is located.
201: Okay, but you're a newbie. No one else gives a shit.
I thought that pie was something carried about concealed on their persons and doled out a little bit at a time to deserving guys.
191 is not correct. Up until the 2000 election, the colors changed with the incumbent. Drum explains.
